The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-12-30
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Hon. Jos. A. 8. MifcE

Hon. Jos A. s. Mitchell Chief-justice.
1881 l., B. e w. r. w. Co. Oliver
| G. j. Action for personal injury.-The evidence
! shows, without substantial contradiction, that
the plaintiff was familiar with the crossing
where, IN q two-horse wagon, he coillded with
appellants train. That he and his son-in-a W
were proceeding along public highway, in the
wagon, going in a northerly direction. Looking
sight of travellers going northward on the
highway. for distance OF from 1000
TO 1900 feet. until point about
| ten rods distant from the crossing was reached
! Then for distance of rods the view of
| the road to the east was obstructed by a farm
! house. For the last three rods before going on
| the track the railway track visible to a
| person looking to the east for distance OF
| eighty rods. at least. The plaintiff testified
that he looked to the east but that when he
looked the train nearly upon him that he
could not escape. The conclusion irresistible
that the plaintiff neglected to look to the east.
This being the failure of the company to
signal was not the of the injury The
evidence shows negligence in the plaintiff. with
out reference to the railroad 9 failure to signal
1851 Chicago & Atlantic Railway Company
VIM. L. Summers Starke G. c. Reversed.
Howk J.-Under Section 1920 in regard to
judgments recovered in justices courts against
railways for animals killed, the proceeding OF
the Judgment plaintiff to enforce the payment
of his judgment by notice and motion is not an
appeal nor in the nature of an appeal from the
judgment of the justice, but Is q new and or1g-
nal suit proceeding, to be instituted under the
statute in the Circuit Court of the proper coun-
ty, and in no other court or county. The deci-
sion of the proper court upon the hearing OF the
suit is not interocutory, but is final order and
judgment from which an appeal will
lie to this court without regard to the amount of
the Justices judgment. of which the court may
hereafter require the payment. 2 The rules OF
practice prescribed by the code apply to
special statutory proceedings, unless the special
statute prescribes different course of procedure.
In such answer to the motion or com
plant whether good or bad. If the facts stated
therein relevant and the defense is not sham,
should not be rejected by the motion to strike
out When qualified and acting justice
filed complaint and upon a change of venue
the action sent to him as a justice, a judg-
ment rendered by him for the plaintiff is void.
12768 John Adams ct al vs.. Charles A.
Harrington ct al. White c. c. Affirmed. Nib
lack. il. board of commissioners has
power to decide whether petition and notice
for constructing highway were sufficient to
authorize further proceedings and having de-
cided they were by the assumption OF jurisdic-
ton over the subject-matter and the taking OF
such further proceedings, the decision IN that
respect cannot be collateraliy attacked. z.
An Injunction in such case will not lie unless
the proceedings are totally void, so defective as
to be a mere nullity. B. An Injunction Will
has adequate remedy by appeal. 4.
When notice of the presentation OF
to law all parties interested must At their PERIL
give attention to the proceedings which ensue,
and If, in the ordinary course OF events, any
such party fails TO receive actual notice or the
petition. no cause is thereby afforded for the
stay of proceedings by injunction. s. A we'll
defined marsh may be used as monument when
appropriate in defining the line of road. e.
The word "abouu," when the context restraints
it's meaning, does not materially impair the GER
tainty of description. z. Technical accuracy
is not necessary in the description of proposed
line of road. 1t is sufficient that surveyor
can, with the assistance of the points definitely
named, designate the pronosed route. 8.
cu de may. in certain cases. De LAID out and
established highway.
1926 Whitewater Valley r. r. Co. Mary
J. Butler Rush c. C. Affirmed. Elliott, j.
Where a railroad company makes no distinction
between trains employed exclusively IN trans
porting passengers and those employed In carry
ing both freight and pass engers. it is bound to
stop at its regular depot in a town a sufficient
length of time to allow a passenger to alight in
safety and it, failing do this. it carries passen
ger beyond the station and, stopping there,
eieccts him. it is liable.
1901. Benz Butler eft al. VS.. State. Parke c.
C.. Rehearing denied.
1856 Johannes Kopeke Ferdinand Ko-
pelke. Jasper c. G. Rehearing denied.
NEW SUITS FILED IN SUPERIOR COURT.
Augustus Kiefer and William Schmidt vs.
Frank p. Nauth; complaint note. Demand,
$500.
Meyers & Meyers VS. A. Dickson & Co.; COM
plant on account. Demand, 5000
Conrad Bender William 7. Noble;
plant for foreclosure of mechanics lien. De-
mand 81, 600.
Julia f. Gray, executor, Charles King,
ct al: com plant notes. Demand, $4o0
John W. Dawson VS.. Joseph Mayer, ct al;
com plant on note. Demand. $3.50.
CRIMINAL COURT.
Hon. VIM. A. Irwin. Judge.
State VS.. James Powers; horse-stealing. Trial
by court. Acquitted.